Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Stoobalou writes "Playboy boss Hugh Hefner has confirmed that — despite Steve Jobs' protestations that Apple is pure and Android is for porn — an app for browsing uncensored back issues of Playboy is to launch later this year on the iPad. The news, which is likely to generate significantly more buzz for Apple's popular tablet as a publishing device than Rupert Murdoch's delayed digital newspaper The Daily, comes courtesy of Hefner's Twitter stream, in which he proclaimed: 'Big news! Playboy — both old & new — will be available on [the] iPad beginning in March.'"

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

I really wish Americans valued the freedom of others to make personal choices, even if those choices are ones they wish others would not make. I really wish there were more people that hated white power literature, but would raise hell when big companies presumed to refuse to let them make an individual choice about buying it or not. I really wish it wasn't good business for Apple, Amazon, Walmart, etc. to censor and limit the content they sell in order to cater to busybodies that don't want other people to have the opportunity to make choices the majority does not like. I wish we were living in the freedom loving, individual rights valuing country a subset of our founding fathers envisioned.

It's great that people have decided playboy isn't so bad or something, but I don't really care. I wish, instead, people were pressuring Apple to become common carriers of content, dedicated to being neutral and letting users choose for themselves.

The articles are actually really good. It would be nice if they had a text only app too. I can see a naked chick whenever I want, but reading Alex Haley's articles from the 60s would be uniquely awesome. My library doesn't carry playboy on their microfiche.

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

If you think Playboy is porn, you really need to get out of the basement. Playboy is to porn what Disneyworld is to authenticity.

I'm curious to hear what your definition of porn is. And with that where you live so I can get an idea of whether your standards are close to your communities standards. As there is no definitive statement as to what constitutes porn that could be applied globally.

Granted, I haven't looked at Playboy in years... So it may have changed dramatically. But last time I looked I would not have called it pornography.

Sure, there's some pictures of naked women in there, and they're sure to titillate your average pubescent male...

But there's more text to the magazine than images. Substantially more text. And most of it is actually decent stuff. Some interesting articles and interviews and whatnot. I suspect that Playboy could actually survive as a magazine even if it didn't have nude photos. Well, maybe not so much these days with the web and all... Any print publication is suffering these days... But you know what I mean.

As for the images themselves, they were far too "tasteful" for my tastes. Plenty of breasts... 3/4 shots... Maybe a glimpse of pubic hair here or there... But that's about it. Your average art gallery has images substantially more pornographic than a Playboy magazine.

If I had to label Playboy, I'd call it "erotica" at best. Certainly not pornography.

Anyone who really thinks Playboy is pornography just needs to visit Google Images or Google Videos with Safe Search turned off to have their horizons dramatically broadened.

It doesn't matter what GP poster believes is porn, or what you - the reader - believe is porn, or what -I- believe is porn. What matters is Apple's definition of porn (and related terms) that have lead to apps which just displayed pictures of girls in bikini or lingerie or whatever being rejected or pulled.

The added value of those apps may be questionable (I guess they exist for people who can't open the browser and look for bikini-clad girls that way), but they should be held to the same criteria as any Playboy app.

If, and this is a big if, the Playboy app does indeed launch with pictures of girls in bikini or even less clothing, without a app policy change*, then those app developers have every right to go bitchslap Apple.

* If there will be a policy change it would seem that Playboy would be at an advantage by having a headstart by knowing this change would come ahead of time, most likely due to discussion between them and those responsible at Apple.

In either case Apple would apparently be giving Playboy preferential treatment. Which wouldn't be -entirely- surprising, given Apple's recent re-iteration that they're not fond of apps from publishers that simply link people to the online content where the user then has to pay for the subscription - thus skirting Apple's desire to take a good chunk of advertising income / subscription fees by running this through their infrastructure.

Actually, I highly support social censorship as opposed to government enforced censorship.

I find the lack of respect for individual choice reflected by such censorship deeply saddening. Individuals should be given the right to make their own choices, even if the majority disagrees. That belief is the foundation of the concept of "freedom" which is often mentioned in political speeches but not valued by society, yourself included apparently.

But this power is all we need to control corporations. We vote every day with the power of our dollar.

This isn't really true, since corporations can legally lobby congress and spend money on media to get their puppets elected. Those politicians then pass laws that restrict our choices. When there is only one or two companies you can buy a needed service from, and both use the same behavior, your voting with your dollar is useless; your strategy wholly impotent. We voted with our dollars against the incompetent expensive mess that is domestic car manufacture, look how well that worked out.